Bush Administration Official Held Accountable By Reporters—Oh Wait, Just Kidding…

Even as Anderson Cooper, Keith Olbermann and others have offered tough—and sometimes downright scathing—criticism of the administration’s response to Katrina, reporters dropped the ball at a critical moment: holding Michael D. Brown accountable. That Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff would bar Brown from speaking at his going-home press conference isn’t all that surprising—but that reporters, who, through Katrina, have found their voice as public advocates—didn’t press Chertoff on his bullish response, published by the NYT, is just irresponsible.

Q. Is this the first step in Mr. Brown’s resignation? Can you answer that, Mr. Brown, please? And also, how do you respond to reports that you embellished your résumé. There was a report in Time magazine.

CHERTOFF. Here are the ground rules. I’m going to answer the questions. I’ve explained what we’re doing. I thought I was about as clear as I possibly could be in English as to what I’m doing and why I’m doing it. Next question. Yes.

Amid disastrous federal relief management and serious allegations that he tweaked his resume to get the FEMA gig, the fact that Brown is being jettisoned back to the Beltway without so much as a hardball (despite, of course, the heartbreaking moment in which Paula Zahn made Brown look like the biggest ignoramous on cable news) is deplorable. Oh well, it’s not like we’re used to administration officials being held accountable; perhaps we’ll remember Brown, as he slinks away from the public eye, possibly never to be heard from again, through Bush’s now famous pronouncement a few days after federal intervention: “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job.”

willemmarx @ September 11, 2005 - 6:08pm

Am I the only person who sees the funny side to Tim's mispelling of "ignoramus"? Or am I the only person mean enough to point it out?

Laura C. Grow @ September 11, 2005 - 6:43pm

An interesting question, especially given that this is not the only mistake I’ve seen here (and -- full disclosure -- I just made one myself). In terms of both ethics and etiquette, should a mistake like that be published, or should the blogger or reporter be personally notified and encouraged to add a correction or retraction?

Anonymous @ September 11, 2005 - 7:40pm

I think that the rule in most publications is to only publish corrections/retractions to factual errors, not merely editing errors. Putting an extra letter in a word doesn't change the meaning of what Tim is saying, nor does it take away from the idea that he's trying to get across. Every paper (or blog, or magazine, etc.) makes copyediting mistakes.

Tim Stelloh @ September 11, 2005 - 7:52pm

Next time I'll make sure my ignoramus detector is on.

Recent comments

Navigation

Syndicate

Syndicate content